Loading judgment…

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE | BharatTax

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

ITA 791/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 April 2026AY 2014-1525 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The assessee is aggrieved by an order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) which dismissed the first appeal due to inordinate delay in filing. The original assessment order was passed ex-parte under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of information regarding share trading amounting to Rs. 22,47,92,489/-. The assessee contended that notices were not received due to a change of address, and the share transactions were not carried out by them.

Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeals were dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, as per Section 249(3) of the Act. The assessee's claim that notices were not received due to an address change was not accepted as a valid reason for the significant delay.

Key Issues

Whether the appeals were maintainable given the inordinate delay in filing, and whether the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay; Whether the assessment order and subsequent penalty levied were justified given the assessee's claim of not receiving notices and not conducting the impugned share transactions.

Sections Cited

147, 144, 250, 253, 271(1)(c), 69, 246A, 148, 142(1), 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M JOSHI

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR

Hearing: 08.04.2026Pronounced: 17.04.2026

Per Bench.:

ITA No.-790/Ind/2025 AY: 2014-15

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a

second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by the order

bearing No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079308840(1)

dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the

Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned

Page 1 of 25

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH ITA No. 790&791/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2014-15

order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2014-15 and the

corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2013 to

31.03.2014.

2.

Factual Matrix

2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s

147 rws 144 of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was

computed & assessed at Rs. 22,47,92,489/-. The return of

Income was not filed by the assessee. The aforesaid

“The instant appeal has been instituted on 09.12.2024 against the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of I.T. Act 1961 (the Act) for A.Y. 2014-15 by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, appeal is filed/migrated to the National Appeal Centre in terms of Notification Faceless No.76/2020/F.No.370142/33/2020-TPL dated 25.09.2020 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Accordingly, appellant appeal as filed for AY 2014-15 is considered as per law. Accordingly, appellant has filed two separate appeals for AY 2014-15 including this appeal as involving similar/same facts of case/contentions/GOA etc., one each against assessment order of AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of I.T. Act and related penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act for AY 2014-15 and the same are discussed together as under as involving similar/same facts of case as advanced by the appellant as per law. Further the appellant has filed these two appeals, one each against assessment order and related penalty order of AO of AY 2014-15 with a delay of more than two and half years and more than two years respectively and with reference to the same appellant has not filed any request/application for condonation of delay. However, in the submissions filed during the appeal proceedings, it is merely contended the same as not filed as the appellant is not aware of these orders of AO due to change of address of appellant etc., and thereby contended such orders of AO as involving re-assessment proceedings as bad in law. However, with reference to delay involved in filing these appeals in particular, apparently, appellant did not file any such submissions/condonation plea so as to substantiate delay involved as involving sufficient and justifiable cause warranting for condonation of delay as per law. Accordingly, appellant appeals as filed involving such inordinate delay in these two appeals is to be treated as having no sufficient justifiable cause for condoning the delay as delay involved being two to three years as explained supra

more than two years respectively of assessment order and related penalty order and is apparently not acceptable as involving any justifiable reasons etc., as appellant failed to even the acknowledge the delay involved in filing these appeals as per Form 35 and even could not adduce any such submissions/condonation plea as needed to explain the inordinate delay involved in filing these two appeals as per law. Accordingly, the appellant appeals apparently are not having a reasonable case to condone the delay as there exists clear and apparent negligence on the part of the appellant in filing these two appeals with such an inordinate delay as high as two to three years as explained supra. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1.4. In view of the above facts of case of appellant and as discussed supra, on account of the failure of the appellant to satisfactorily explain the delay, the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine. It may also be pertinent to note that the failure to file the appeal within a reasonable period implies acceptance of the order of an adjudicating authority and subsequent decisions by appellate authorities in similar matters cannot be a justification to file a delayed appeal. The Hon. Bombay High Court has had occasion to consider such a matter in Somerset Place Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officer 16(2)(1) in 57 taxmann.com 7. It observed as under: "Applying the test of a prudent litigant it cannot be held that once the applicant by his own violation had decided to accept a judicial order, the applicant can at any time assail the same may be for the reason that subsequently new decisions are rendered on that issue..... If the contention of the applicant is accepted, it would create a situation of chaos and unsettling various orders passed from time to time by the Tribunal as accepted by the parties. The legislative mandate in stipulating a limitation to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation cannot be permitted to be defeated when a litigant has taken a decision not to pursue further proceedings. A new ruling is no ground for reviewing a previous judgement. If this is permitted, the inevitable consequence is confusion, chaos, uncertainty and inconvenience as then no orders can ever attain finality though accepted by parties." Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1.8. Under the circumstances, it is constrained to hold that no material substantiation/even acknowledgement of delay involved with condonation plea etc., has been adduced by the appellant to successfully demonstrate that there was no negligence, inaction, or want of due diligence involved in the inordinate delay of more than two and half years and more than two years respectively in filing these two appeals against assessment order and related penalty order. Indeed, there appears appellant clear negligence as attributable to appellant to pursue quasi-judicial proceedings of Income Tax as applicable as per the time limits and thereby appellant mere plea without any

proceedings etc., it is noticeable that the appellant is merely contending the order of AO as bad in law by claiming the share transactions as simply not attributable to the appellant and thereby further contended these transactions as not carried out by appellant as claimed by the department as per the department information and accordingly, claims such treatment of these transactions as attributable to unexplained investment of appellant as not maintainable. However, appellant is contending/claiming as having demat account during the relevant period and also claimed having maintained the same with Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., which was declared as defaulter by SEBI and thereby contended could not obtain the relevant account transactions as applicable to appellant for the relevant period to explain the same. In the light of these apparent facts as claimed by the appellant, appellant is indeed maintaining demat account during the period and could not obtain these transactions as took place in appellant account/demat account as applicable/as per the information obtained by the department owing to the difficulties explained by the appellant. However, appellant did not dispute the fact of transactions in appellant account/demat account as indeed took place/carried out during the year as applicable to appellant as per the information populated to the department as observed by AO in the assessment order. Accordingly, the primary onus is on appellant to explain these transactions as took place in appellant account/appellant demat account as involving share transactions under different codes totalling to an amount of Rs.22.47 crore transactions as analysed and reconciled by AO in the assessment order. In the absence of the same these transactions stand as unexplained transactions/investments of appellant as per the provisions u/s 69 of IT Act as reasoned by AO in assessment order and thereby there exists no infirmity in assessing the same as applicable to appellant facts of case as the same is not substantiated as per law by the appellant. Accordingly, appellant various contentions/GOA/submissions as advanced to hold the order of AO as bad in law in assessing the unexplained share transactions as unexplained investment of appellant is to be treated as neither reconcilable nor justifiable as per the facts on record as the primary onus is cast on appellant to explain appellant demat account with supporting proofs of explainable sources for these transactions as indeed took place as observed by AO in assessment order. Further, appellant has placed reliance on various citations as per the submissions to hold the same as allowable and on perusal of facts of case/ ratios of adjudication of the citations as applicable to appellant facts of case, the same are neither comparable nor equitable in its facts of case and ratios of adjudication apparently as

per law. Further, appellant did not bring out such comparative analysis as applicable to appellant facts of case as related to such share transactions/demat account transactions etc., and ratios of adjudication as attributable to the citations as needed to adduce and thereby appellant mere contentions on this analogy to hold the assessment order as not maintainable is to be treated as not maintainable as per the facts of case and circumstances as explained above. In the light of these facts appellant various GOA as advanced are to be treated as not maintainable and thereby appellant appeal against assessment order is to be treated as dismissed as per facts/submissions available on record on merits as well not withstanding its dismissal in limine. Further, on perusal of appellant various/multiple overlapping grounds of appeal as advanced against the penalty order of AO, it is noticeable that, appellant is contending the order of AO in levying penalty as erroneous and bad in law as it fails to appreciate appellant facts/circumstances of case in initiating and levying such penalty and thereby contended such order of AO as not maintainable and requested to delete the same. However, on perusal of facts on record as brought out by AO in the penalty order, it is clearly noticeable that appellant is indeed involved in making substantial share transactions during the year for Rs.22.47 crores for which appellant could not explain the applicable sources as attributable to these deposits/transactions as per law before AO as already discussed in detail supra as pertains to appellant appeal against assessment order. In the absence of the same only, AO treated such unexplained share transactions as unexplained investment as reasoned in the assessment order along with initiation of consequent penalty proceedings for concealment of income as applicable as per law as referred in the assessment order. Accordingly, AO further pursued these penalty proceedings seeking appellant explanation for the same and as appellant failed to substantiate the same, AO reasoned the entire unexplained investment as involving concealment of income to that extent and as squarely attracted by the relevant penalty proceedings as per law as analysed in this penalty order read with related assessment order. Accordingly, AO treated appellant as only involved in concealment of income as per the provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act and thereby levied such applicable penalty. In the light of these facts and on perusal of appellant contentions/GOA/submissions as filed during appeal proceedings, it is noticeable that appellant is contending that such initiation and levy of penalty as not maintainable as the income assessed by AO in assessment order is itself erroneous as appellant is not involved in these share transactions etc., and thereby contended the consequent penalty order of AO as not maintainable as applicable to appellant facts of case. However, appellant could not establish the correctness of claims as made on the issue of unexplained

investment/transactions as contended as already reasoned and analysed as discussed in detail supra as pertains to assessment appeal. As appellant failed to substantiate such share transactions/investments with supporting proofs/sources, the entire transactions are treated as unexplained investment resulting in assessing the income as reasoned by AO in assessment order with consequent initiation of penalty for concealment of income to that extent as reasoned in the penalty order read with related assessment order. In the light of these apparent facts owing to the appellant deficiencies in explaining the share investments as reasoned by AO in the penalty order, the addition as made in the assessment order is treated as squarely attracted by the relevant penalty proceedings and thereby there exists no infirmity in the order of AO in levying such penalty as per this order dated 12.09.2022 of AY 2014-15, keeping in view the detailed discussion as already made supra on this issue of unexplained investment with consequent dismissal of appellant appeal against substantive addition made in the assessment order. Further, appellant has placed reliance on various citations as per the submissions to hold the same as allowable and on perusal of facts of case/ ratios of adjudication of the citations as applicable to appellant facts of case as attributable to such unexplained investments/share transactions/demat account transaction etc., the same are neither comparable nor equitable in its facts of case and ratios of adjudication apparently as per law. Further, appellant did not bring out such comparative analysis as applicable to appellant facts of case and ratios of adjudication as attributable to the citations as needed to adduce and thereby appellant mere contentions on this analogy to hold the penalty order as not maintainable is to be treated as not maintainable as per the facts of case and circumstances as explained above. Considering these finer facts of the case, appellant mere contentions as advanced to hold the penalty order of AO as not maintainable without any substantiation is to be treated as not justifiable and thereby penalty order of AO is sustainable as the substantive addition as made in assessment order of AY 2014-15 stands sustained as reasoned supra as involving concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act to attract these penalty proceedings as per law. In the result appellant all GOA as advanced against this penalty order of AY 2014-15 is to be treated as not maintainable and thereby appellant appeal against this penalty order stands dismissed as per facts/submissions available on record on merits as well not withstanding its dismissal in limine.